From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64A39C433E7 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CAF6223C6 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:01:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="gmVJOSMX" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731100AbgJSTBE (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 15:01:04 -0400 Received: from hqnvemgate26.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:10851 "EHLO hqnvemgate26.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730842AbgJSTBE (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Oct 2020 15:01:04 -0400 Received: from hqmail.nvidia.com (Not Verified[216.228.121.13]) by hqnvemgate26.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, AES256-SHA) id ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:00:51 -0700 Received: from HQMAIL111.nvidia.com (172.20.187.18) by HQMAIL109.nvidia.com (172.20.187.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:01:03 +0000 Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.70.103) by HQMAIL111.nvidia.com (172.20.187.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:01:03 +0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=nN7DDGIzeKsqP7lR+EtrEntUecH424vsuP7vYE6BmkxJdqP1ipEKOjlmoCpyPRX+OJhC8keEsQNlz2f8RyOd63nA1w4IoGPCxJ90ucso71QWkJuvy88AzLsWd0rFqa2RlUeOxjpCmJGNT6RoghxeVeIlYAkkb3E6Y5bfno+QBdzLibVnJI/AIePmMDQaXVgD9qrxJnTzfu8V/6y/4y+g14LrEEvIG8RuVvoYZjUgnomJNT6v8qzlfn0vqP/B7nU98biiSfrqyzAiRri0oL44USPiL72atd5AKb7pACvyLHJmAgovJW2LRvySVLW6Ox2HuQ+8k75Hm2haUtlpOCKIsw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=3ungdr2ZKqvNyGtPqMYHLSnw+XIu5ok+S5tkm0qBgZM=; b=Tci+BlCfMInE43CB3zfuekFlDxnhk1sK/2c2xO+/7O3mTa39mc1/d80y1hsYtrP/NPFFcYWz7plaxX0OCkCTXCzGimu1WM5L7vTNIB7JonJNuK4d2Osn6CmhH2JTjiOAp2z9Yf+C0j/0qo9jZeUF/cqbK4aTH8AL3wMKTY5oceJh+L82lffuAYKjlvbycMdr/MMilGY3xmmCQ6VoBeSLWHRqPjk71W14P8hV8iIsKkhiILixEtvjJUEH/WJteDemnpwjiKGVxShgpoQysi+NSNvN5xtkVncuumaKQp2hLlKjrVNVFNCtrK3FvvohiWTRfdY1sYqJpfwmDGJmTaPhvg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nvidia.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nvidia.com; dkim=pass header.d=nvidia.com; arc=none Received: from DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:14a::12) by DM6PR12MB4499.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:2ab::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3477.25; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:01:02 +0000 Received: from DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cdbe:f274:ad65:9a78]) by DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cdbe:f274:ad65:9a78%7]) with mapi id 15.20.3477.028; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:01:02 +0000 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:01:00 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe To: Parav Pandit CC: Leon Romanovsky , Doug Ledford , Jakub Kicinski , Jiri Pirko , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , Michael Guralnik , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Saeed Mahameed Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-rc] RDMA/mlx5: Fix devlink deadlock on net namespace deletion Message-ID: <20201019190100.GA6219@nvidia.com> References: <20201019052736.628909-1-leon@kernel.org> <20201019130751.GE6219@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-ClientProxiedBy: BL1PR13CA0161.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:2bd::16) To DM6PR12MB3834.namprd12.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:5:14a::12) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1 Received: from mlx.ziepe.ca (156.34.48.30) by BL1PR13CA0161.namprd13.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:2bd::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3499.4 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:01:01 +0000 Received: from jgg by mlx with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1kUaOy-002dBP-EY; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:01:00 -0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1603134051; bh=3ungdr2ZKqvNyGtPqMYHLSnw+XIu5ok+S5tkm0qBgZM=; h=ARC-Seal:ARC-Message-Signature:ARC-Authentication-Results:Date: From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:X-ClientProxiedBy:MIME-Version: X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType; b=gmVJOSMXnWYmjlJ3+aRgHFbhT4sizee3pSF5RwUOrUBGGugJhXCkEkRDMBR6aVTcN 230EatcHANpRToxJXDxrnFng0JSBYKikJaLIfBW5+wv6ji420EK7lrGy43L4D5UDUd 0UsvaNFTw9bMT6fMJ0EEAQY1rEg3yjtjxX06KM/Gpp+i/AdzlYXsNyL6AALSuJpCux 1CbHkuJSrVbPO0UMyyGJDxKV1Ur1F17aLE1Z3vaHVu1R1G7rqVAxovE8EhwhufJhic B7QunhH8B5DPaXrsCFAcDJ74ffbHm6ZYAFNk3AkPdlwTyK3BH7R9VR1BD6l++EVc5m 9PukEAoGmHItA== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 01:23:23PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > - err = register_netdevice_notifier(&dev->port[port_num].roce.nb); > > > + err = register_netdevice_notifier_net(mlx5_core_net(dev->mdev), > > > + &dev->port[port_num].roce.nb); > > > > This looks racy, what lock needs to be held to keep *mlx5_core_net() stable? > > mlx5_core_net() cannot be accessed outside of mlx5 driver's load, unload, reload path. > > When this is getting executed, devlink cannot be executing reload. > This is guarded by devlink_reload_enable/disable calls done by mlx5 core. A comment that devlink_reload_enable/disable() must be held would be helpful > > > > > if (err) { > > > dev->port[port_num].roce.nb.notifier_call = NULL; > > > return err; > > > @@ -3335,7 +3336,8 @@ static int mlx5_add_netdev_notifier(struct > > > mlx5_ib_dev *dev, u8 port_num) static void > > > mlx5_remove_netdev_notifier(struct mlx5_ib_dev *dev, u8 port_num) { > > > if (dev->port[port_num].roce.nb.notifier_call) { > > > - unregister_netdevice_notifier(&dev- > > >port[port_num].roce.nb); > > > + unregister_netdevice_notifier_net(mlx5_core_net(dev- > > >mdev), > > > + &dev- > > >port[port_num].roce.nb); > > > > This seems dangerous too, what if the mlx5_core_net changed before we > > get here? > > When I inspected driver, code, I am not aware of any code flow where > this can change before reaching here, because registration and > unregistration is done only in driver load, unload and reload path. > Reload can happen only after devlink_reload_enable() is done. But we enable reload right after init_one > > What are the rules for when devlink_net() changes? > > > devlink_net() changes only after unload() callback is completed in driver. You mean mlx5_devlink_reload_down ? That seems OK then Jason